Quote from: profitis on December 21, 2014, 04:22:09 PM
Majority of people,including children are not interested in validating things they don't know about or have no interest in

According to you it is obvious to everyone who has read a high-school chemistry textbook.  Again when something is easy and there are a large number of people who are capable.  The expectation is that it will happen.  You say it's easy, you say there are a large number of people who are capable.  Hence the expectation is we should see this.   We don't, Bayes rule says you have to adjust your likelihoods.  Either it is hard or it can't be done.

QuoteMost people do not know what ou is and therefore have no interest in it.

People do not need to know what OU is.  They simply need to be able to recognize that something that could power something eternally.  Which, again according to you ANY CHILD can do and anyone who's read a high-school level textbook would find it obvious.  Hence again, the expectation you have set up is that you will see an article in a journal which unambiguously states the proof of OU.  You can't so...you need to readjust what you are saying about how easy this is.

QuoteNow this deserves a thread all on its own titled:'will they ever give a noble for ou'.

Except that's not what I was talking about.  I was talking about you getting published in a 1.8 ranked journal.  It won't happen.  I have offered you thousands of dollars if you do and fail to get the million from the Nobel but you keep making excuses and attempting to shift the argument to the likelihood of getting a Nobel.  How many thousand do I need to offer?

Quote frm sark :'Except that's not what I was talking about.  I was talking about you getting published in a 1.8 ranked journal.  It won't happen.  I have offered you thousands of dollars if you do and fail to get the million from the Nobel but you keep making excuses and attempting to shift the argument to the likelihood of getting a Nobel.  How many thousand do I need to offer?'

End quote

What do you have to gain mr sarkeizen.one way you lose money,and the other way? Are you willing to go up to ten thousand dollars..that converts into a decent sum over here where I am

Quote from: profitis on December 22, 2014, 02:13:49 AM
What do you have to gain mr sarkeizen.

Nothing but I suspect that the odds of you being correct are, conservatively 1 in 10^999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.  So I'm not in danger of losing anything for my next 50 billion lifetimes.

Quoteone way you lose money,and the other way?

I consider the odds of you being correct to be immensely worse than the odds of a perfect proof of OU not winning the Nobel.  If you had checked you would have seen at least a few quotes from people who have done work in the field of Thermodynamics (if you can all that a field) who consider OU an "automatic Nobel".

QuoteAre you willing to go up to ten thousand dollars.

Willing but I can probably only pay out $5000 from cash on hand and I don't like betting beyond that even if there's virtually no chance of losing.  I'm comfortable not rich.

Also I assume it wouldn't be hard to win the forum prize money which is more than $5K last I checked.

Remember your article must be printed in an journal with a SJR rank of 1.8 or better and it must clearly claim overunity in some unambiguous way.

...and not win the Nobel in 2 years.  I'd also add some common sense things like your article can't be retracted in that period.

 quote frm sark:'
Nothing but I suspect that the odds of you being correct are, conservatively 1 in 10^999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.  So I'm not in danger of losing anything for my next 50 billion lifetimes'


End quote

Those are your odds yet you take the bet in the first place? You're a strange gambler mr sarkeizen.


quote frm sark:'
I consider the odds of you being correct to be immensely worse than the odds of a perfect proof of OU not winning the Nobel.  If you had checked you would have seen at least a few quotes from people who have done work in the field of Thermodynamics (if you can all that a field) who consider OU an "automatic Nobel"
End quote

Yet you lose 5000 if I DONT get a nobel.so if I don't get a noble arent you going to say'hey you didn't get a noble becoz your evidence was underunity so I'm not gona giv you the 5grand?


quote frm sark:'
Also I assume it wouldn't be hard to win the forum prize money which is more than $5K last I checked.'
End quote

There's larger prizes around.


Quote frm sark:'
Remember your article must be printed in an journal with a SJR rank of 1.8 or better and it must clearly claim overunity in some unambiguous way.'
End quote

'Evidence for Spontaneously reversable thermodynamics in concentration cells' how does that sound @sarkeizen? I may aswell just copy karpens original journal publications,polish,re-arrange them a bit and submit them right?